Letters to the Editor
FreeProton
Published Letters: 238 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Not quite a big victory
[Read the article: A battle Bush's EPA can't win]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, Schwarzenegger is impressing me by acting independently, even though I'm not particularly surprised: he was always the newcomer who hated politics as usual, and his near-downfall was brought almost entirely by his inexperience and impatience. We should not expect heroic altruism from him: he's a politician and plays complex games, but I think it's a hopeful sign that he finally is starting to understand how the game is played. All well and good. However, in our cynical times it's a little much to ask anyone to believe that this is a great victory. Even if Schwarzenegger triumphs quickly over the EPA, the result will be another agency blamed for our ills (just like FEMA, the Fed and the Justice Department), and the ills will not go away, while the agency may get damaged beyond repair.
Still, it's a battle that should be fought, if only to deliver as many slaps to Bush's face as possible. Alas, I'm afraid the man (and his group of thugs) will never understand that he's wrong. He will not even consider himself defeated. He'll retreat to his Crawford Ranch and whine about nobody listening to him. He is, after all, the Commander Guy.
-
Science vs. politics
[Read the article: A natural experiment in Republican biodiversity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Science has always had a strange relationship with politics; scientific discoveries are useful to the government only when they bolster its position somehow, and are shut down at the first signs of a threat. So, if you're developing nuclear or biological weapons (even under the innocuous guise of space exploration or somesuch), then you're golden. As SOON as you start contradicting the party line, off with you. US scientists are fortunate that when THAT happens they're merely unfunded and ignored, as opposed to, say, Soviet scientists that were jailed and executed.
That being said... how can scientists influence candidates, anyway? I suppose what Nature editors mean (wait, isn't that a British journal, anyway?) is good ol' lobbying. After all, it's the oil industry lobby that's fighting the climate change research, and the evangelical Christian lobby that's fighting the stem cell research. So why not have a scientific lobby that'll fight all those other lobbies?
Yeah, I don't know if that'll work, but hey. Nature's editors are smart people (even though their copy editing sucks) so perhaps they know what they're talking about. Right?
-
Obama the accused
[Read the article: On Obama, the Post ignores shades of gray]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a minor point (in terms of space) and I've raised this issue before but I'll continue raising until something happens (or until I get bored, whatever): Obama was not "accused" of being a Muslim. Being a Muslim is not a crime, so he cannot be "accused" of being a Muslim, any more than you can be "accused" of being a Jew. Every time you say "accused of being a Muslim" you are upholding the right-wing stereotype of Islam as a religion of murder. And I'm sure you don't want to do that. You're the poet, Mr. Grieve, find a better word.
-
Continuation of the double standard
[Read the article: How bashing Hillary backfired]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To all those who are getting all uppity about Clinton's emotional moment: yes, absolutely, there are much more horrible things that can happen to a human being than slipping in the polls. Nevertheless, think about this: what other candidate, Democrat or Republican, has been the recipient of quite this much bile from the press? And those of you who say that there may be "legitimate reasons" why the boys (hell, and girls) in the press hate her... what are those reasons? Oh yes, like any politician, she's made questionable decisions in the past, and perhaps more than some others. But there they were, carrion birds circling around her after Iowa, while her campaign was still quite alive. Whether it's fear of powerful women, fear of change, pathological hatred of the Clintons, or some nebulous "legitimate reason", this was personal, folks. Was the press dancing the jig on Giuliani's grave after Iowa, or for that matter after New Hampshire? And how about Huckabee's smackdown of Mitt Romney? Did Maureen Dowd write a nasty shit-slinging column about Mitt? I never read one.
Frankly, Clinton finished a very close third in Iowa, which was by no means a smackdown of any kind, especially given the number of people who actually caucused. And whatever you say, she didn't "cry her way to victory", either. Her voice cracked and her eyes welled up ... and it's a wonder this didn't happen sooner, considering what she's been through as First Lady, and when running for Senate, and during this interminable campaign. I want to see any one of you clever commenters last through a year-long public affairs fest, with everyone and their pet squirrel seizing every opportunity to humiliate you. If you don't laugh, you're a robot, if you laugh, you're trying too hard, if your voice cracks, by Jove, they're hysterical! Someone get the paramedics, this person is going to blow!
I have not watched TV in years and I've stopped reading most of the editorials in newspapers specifically because of this endless, meaningless, vapid, soul-sucking blathering about Clinton's emotions, Edwards' hair, Kerry's French, Thompson's "man-smell". It's fucked up beyond belief, folks. So it's a little refreshing to see that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, apparently, think so too and simply refuse to vote like Chris Matthews says they should. I like that. It's a good thing.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch some revisionist propaganda on the History Channel.